BobYIL
Well-known
Here are some hi-ISO samples from the new Monochrome M9. You will note that they are not OOC but "... have been converted from DNG to JPEG with no other adjustments made."
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/leica-m-monochrom-sample-photos-19223
It would be interesting to hear about some X-Pro1 owners stating their own impressions about the IQ of these shots above ISO 1600 as compared to their own experience with the Fujifilm samples. Then we might have a sound idea about the relative performance levels of a top monochromatic FF size CCD sensor vs. a top APS-C size CMOS sensor. These will provide with us some insightful (and practical) information about the present state of art of the sensors as of mid-2012. Thank you.
Regards,
Bob
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/leica-m-monochrom-sample-photos-19223
It would be interesting to hear about some X-Pro1 owners stating their own impressions about the IQ of these shots above ISO 1600 as compared to their own experience with the Fujifilm samples. Then we might have a sound idea about the relative performance levels of a top monochromatic FF size CCD sensor vs. a top APS-C size CMOS sensor. These will provide with us some insightful (and practical) information about the present state of art of the sensors as of mid-2012. Thank you.
Regards,
Bob
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
How about we put it up against the Nikon D4 ... a camera that nearly matches it's price! 
BobYIL
Well-known
How about we put it up against the Nikon D4 ... a camera that nearly matches it's price!
(Oh, noo!... Do you know that "lebendig gegessen" in German means "eaten alive"?
)david.elliott
Well-known
Up to iso 1600 the noise on the x pro 1 is negligible. Above that, there is some noise to take care of in lightroom but it is no big deal.
edit - image removed temporarily for reprocessing without noise reduction
The above is a pygmy falcon photographed at the national zoo. The slight grid patterning in the photos is apparent because the photo was taken through a fine metal mesh. Unfortunately, this situation affected a lot of my photos but it cannot be helped.
This isn't my best work ever, but is a good photo to illustrate the camera's high iso capabilities and the noise at iso 3200 or in worse conditions. At any rate, to the issue of noise. This is an example of a photo that was 2 stops underexposed despite being shot at 3200 iso. The photo was brightened considerably (obviously) in lightroom and only slight noise reduction was applied. This is a processed jpeg, not a raw - no adobe support yet.
The fuji sensor is great and let's me get photos that I cannot get with my film cameras or even with previous digital cameras I've owned.
edit - image removed temporarily for reprocessing without noise reduction
The above is a pygmy falcon photographed at the national zoo. The slight grid patterning in the photos is apparent because the photo was taken through a fine metal mesh. Unfortunately, this situation affected a lot of my photos but it cannot be helped.
This isn't my best work ever, but is a good photo to illustrate the camera's high iso capabilities and the noise at iso 3200 or in worse conditions. At any rate, to the issue of noise. This is an example of a photo that was 2 stops underexposed despite being shot at 3200 iso. The photo was brightened considerably (obviously) in lightroom and only slight noise reduction was applied. This is a processed jpeg, not a raw - no adobe support yet.
The fuji sensor is great and let's me get photos that I cannot get with my film cameras or even with previous digital cameras I've owned.
Moriturii
Well-known
"state of art of the sensors as of mid-2012"
Isn't the monochrome sensor in the M9M same as the old sensor in M9 but just stripped bayern filter? So it's more like 2012 vs 2009 technology then.
Isn't the monochrome sensor in the M9M same as the old sensor in M9 but just stripped bayern filter? So it's more like 2012 vs 2009 technology then.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
The M9M files look very close to what I am getting out of my X-Pro. At lower ISO's (~800) the Leica stuff may be slightly better. At higher ISO the M9M falls behind.
The Leica files are considerably noisier than Leica's hype had led me to believe.
Note that these conclusions will depend on the algorithm used to demosaic the X-Pro's RAW files (M9M files need not be demosaic'd, of course). Since the X-Pro uses a new type of non-Beyer array, we may expect the demosaic algorithms to improve rather rapidly.
The cameras are waaay too close in performance to justify a $6300 premium. And the Fuji can do a lot of things –- useful things -- that the M9M cannot begin to do. Not least among these is its ability to do on-the fly filter bracketing, generating jpegs that use information from the color array to simulate B&W film shot with red, green, or yellow filters.
In addition, I am not a fan of the M9M's spectral response curve, which roughly simulates a panchromatic film (say, ACROS) shot through a light green filter.
The Leica files are considerably noisier than Leica's hype had led me to believe.
Note that these conclusions will depend on the algorithm used to demosaic the X-Pro's RAW files (M9M files need not be demosaic'd, of course). Since the X-Pro uses a new type of non-Beyer array, we may expect the demosaic algorithms to improve rather rapidly.
The cameras are waaay too close in performance to justify a $6300 premium. And the Fuji can do a lot of things –- useful things -- that the M9M cannot begin to do. Not least among these is its ability to do on-the fly filter bracketing, generating jpegs that use information from the color array to simulate B&W film shot with red, green, or yellow filters.
In addition, I am not a fan of the M9M's spectral response curve, which roughly simulates a panchromatic film (say, ACROS) shot through a light green filter.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I think the X-Pro1 is awesome at 6400. It looks more like film than any other digicam I've used. Here's an out-of-camera jpeg, converted to B&W, along with a full size 100% crop. Probably not remotely as sharp as the MM but whatever. I have the NR at -2.
Asparagus (for RFF) by mabel.sound, on Flickr
Asparagus crop (for RFF) by mabel.sound, on Flickr
Asparagus (for RFF) by mabel.sound, on Flickr
Asparagus crop (for RFF) by mabel.sound, on Flickr
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Actually, after clicking that link, I think the Fuji looks a hell of a lot better at 100% than the MM does at 6400.
(I don't have a horse in this race, by the way--I have a regular M9 and think it is glorious at low ISO. But the Fuji has some real mojo at high ISO, I think.)
(I don't have a horse in this race, by the way--I have a regular M9 and think it is glorious at low ISO. But the Fuji has some real mojo at high ISO, I think.)
gdi
Veteran
Up to iso 1600 the noise on the x pro 1 is negligible. Above that, there is some noise to take care of in lightroom but it is no big deal.
The above is a pygmy falcon photographed at the national zoo. The slight grid patterning in the photos is apparent because the photo was taken through a fine metal mesh. Unfortunately, this situation affected a lot of my photos but it cannot be helped.
This isn't my best work ever, but is a good photo to illustrate the camera's high iso capabilities and the noise at iso 3200 or in worse conditions. At any rate, to the issue of noise. This is an example of a photo that was 2 stops underexposed despite being shot at 3200 iso. The photo was brightened considerably (obviously) in lightroom and only slight noise reduction was applied. This is a processed jpeg, not a raw - no adobe support yet.
The fuji sensor is great and let's me get photos that I cannot get with my film cameras or even with previous digital cameras I've owned.
Do you think it was the noise reduction that softened the photo like that? I think it may look better sharper - even with some noise....
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
BobYIL
Well-known
The following crops are all ISO 6400, all are 100% crops from the same size final pictures; the first one from the M9M samples , the others are from two random X-Pro1 pictures.
My inquiry: As being X-Pro1 user, can you get similar results at ISO 6400 like the ones below or these are rather extraordinary samples?
My inquiry: As being X-Pro1 user, can you get similar results at ISO 6400 like the ones below or these are rather extraordinary samples?
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Yes, my asparagus shot above is a random snap. This is simply what the XP1 looks like at 6400.
david.elliott
Well-known
Don't think so. It isn't any sharper even with zero noise reduction applied. I really only have a couple ticks of lightroom's noise reduction on.
I think it is soft due to shaky hands and fluffy birdness combined with a photo through a fine mesh fence.
Two other somewhat sharper photos from the same zoo outing at iso 3200 and underexposed at that iso.
edit - images removed temporarily for reprocessing without noise reduction
david.elliott
Well-known
Agreed - hopefully very soon.
I don't care for the m9 monochrom's high iso noise. Just looks fuzzy. Does not resemble film, at least in my opinion.
Nice quick snaps.
BobYIL
Well-known
Thank you. Actually your crop shows the better grain (noise) structure than all the samples here. With a sharper rendering lens probably the asparagus details would be more enhanced.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I remember when I had my X100 I was pretty impressed with the camera at 3200 but not so much at 6400. The 6400 files did convert very well to black and white though I recall where the noise vaguely simulated grain!
The Xpro appears to be a stop better than the X100.
That M9M sample is pretty horrible IMO and I hope it's not representative of the camera's true output at high ISO's ... if it is I'd be surprised!
The Xpro appears to be a stop better than the X100.
That M9M sample is pretty horrible IMO and I hope it's not representative of the camera's true output at high ISO's ... if it is I'd be surprised!
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
100% at ISO 3200.
• The M9M crop (top) is from the link at the top of this post.
• The X-Pro1 crop (bottom) is from a RAW file developed in RPP64 (beta software) with NO noise reduction, NO sharpening, NO tonal curve adjustments.
Oh, did I mention that the X-Pro file was intentionally underexposed by a stop, then pushed a stop during development? Well, it was.
You're going to need that drink, Leica.
Here's the full image from which the above crop is taken. Sharpening now applied but still no NR or tone curve manipulation:
• The M9M crop (top) is from the link at the top of this post.
• The X-Pro1 crop (bottom) is from a RAW file developed in RPP64 (beta software) with NO noise reduction, NO sharpening, NO tonal curve adjustments.
Oh, did I mention that the X-Pro file was intentionally underexposed by a stop, then pushed a stop during development? Well, it was.
You're going to need that drink, Leica.
Here's the full image from which the above crop is taken. Sharpening now applied but still no NR or tone curve manipulation:
BobYIL
Well-known
Thank you semilog.. This is a most clear advantage and one does not need Hubble-class eyeglasses to note also the resolution differences.
I was about to praise Leica's noise structuring showing no pattern, as if inducing a kind of acutance we're accustomed from film, however I see here its totally adverse effect: With film it contributes to resolution, here it's eating into resolution. How sharp and well-defined the pages of the books in your sample!
(I did not like the algorithm Leica employing.. it's rather illusive..)
I was about to praise Leica's noise structuring showing no pattern, as if inducing a kind of acutance we're accustomed from film, however I see here its totally adverse effect: With film it contributes to resolution, here it's eating into resolution. How sharp and well-defined the pages of the books in your sample!
(I did not like the algorithm Leica employing.. it's rather illusive..)